What is the point of sending this pitiful example of humanity to prison?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55013252

OK the messages were vile; but they were just that. He has a very low IQ and learning difficulties.

Could we not have found another way...?

The whole low IQ and learning disabilities has been debunked numerous times.

I used to do charity fund raising for people with learning disabilities for both young and old people, they are not all that stupid as the public make out.

This vile idiot knew exactly what he was doing and he didn't have any trouble finding email address of MP's and typing out emails. Don't ever believe the lawyers Wyot, they only want the dough; another reason why people settle out of court is to save on lawyer fees.

How about we bring back chain gangs ?

Wyot wrote:
Could we not have found another way...?


If someone with severe behavioural issues threatened to kill you - what other way would you suggest for him?

Sebturian wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Could we not have found another way...?


If someone with severe behavioural issues threatened to kill you - what other way would you suggest for him?




First assessed how much of a danger he actually posed to me? If low then I would welcome that he recieves care and support (in the community) to address his problems and move on. I would also like to meet him. It is called compassion; its means is empathy.

Sebturian wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Could we not have found another way...?


If someone with severe behavioural issues threatened to kill you - what other way would you suggest for him?




Even if a person needs to be kept away from others it doesn't have to be a punishment for something they cant help.

When the poet John Barlas fired three shots at the House of Commons from Westminster Bridge on New Years Eve 1891, friends aware of his true nature rallied round to help him.

Green Man wrote:


How about we bring back chain gangs ?

I just don't see the point of sending him to prison GM. I think prison should only be for the currently dangerous to the rest of us of serious violence (physical and/or sexual). If you are trying to change people's behaviour, a community setting is more effective and much cheaper for the tax payer.

I agree Wyot. Prison should be for people who are an actual danger (i.e. a high likelihood they will kill, rape or harm someone).

I do feel there should be something else (A short period in a secure hospital for assessment and treatment) where people have a mental health issue and might injure someone else or are in the process of self-destructing. The threshold would be below where a person can be sectioned now. This would be to prevent themselves getting into further trouble if they hurt someone else, this is to protect themselves - so they don't end up in the criminal justice system - and the public. There are too many occasions where a family end up losing a loved one, and a person ends up with prison time, it is such a waste.

While they do end up in the criminal justice system Flintstone there are post sentence Community Orders that have "mental health treatment requirements". The offender must agree to be made subject to them as they are compelled to recieve mental health interventions to reduce their risks. But it is an opportunity to try and do so in the community.

Mr Flintstone wrote:
I agree Wyot. Prison should be for people who are an actual danger (i.e. a high likelihood they will kill, rape or harm someone).

I do feel there should be something else (A short period in a secure hospital for assessment and treatment) where people have a mental health issue and might injure someone else or are in the process of self-destructing. The threshold would be below where a person can be sectioned now. This would be to prevent themselves getting into further trouble if they hurt someone else, this is to protect themselves - so they don't end up in the criminal justice system - and the public. There are too many occasions where a family end up losing a loved one, and a person ends up with prison time, it is such a waste.

So many people have been 'declared to threat to society' then return to murder or assault back on the streets.

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Mr Flintstone wrote:


So many people have been society' then return to murder or assault back on the streets.

But to eliminate the inevitable fact that violent people may be violent in the future, you would have to remove all these people permanently from society. Unless you bring back the death penalty for everyone who commits an assault in their local up to murder, we would need to lock them up until they die.

This would be an unaffordable - almost idealistically utopian approach - to the problem, aside from ethical objections.

Like C19 we have to live with a degree of risk in order to enjoy a civilised and free society.

Green Man wrote:
Mr Flintstone wrote:
I agree Wyot. Prison should be for people who are an actual danger (i.e. a high likelihood they will kill, rape or harm someone).

I do feel there should be something else (A short period in a secure hospital for assessment and treatment) where people have a mental health issue and might injure someone else or are in the process of self-destructing. The threshold would be below where a person can be sectioned now. This would be to prevent themselves getting into further trouble if they hurt someone else, this is to protect themselves - so they don't end up in the criminal justice system - and the public. There are too many occasions where a family end up losing a loved one, and a person ends up with prison time, it is such a waste.

So many people have been 'declared to threat to society' then return to murder or assault back on the streets.

But that is the fault of the system, and the fools that release them, not the unwell person.

So many people have been 'declared to threat to society' then return to murder or assault back on the streets.

Should that be 'declared no threat to society'? That is true and it is awful but doesn't that show that the current system fails? Either some people are not able to be rehabilitated or the system is not able to do so? It is a difficult problem because there isn't a test to predict future behaviour. If someone has committed a similar violent offence again though then there should be a longer sentence.

While they do end up in the criminal justice system Flintstone there are post sentence Community Orders that have "mental health treatment requirements". The offender must agree to be made subject to them as they are compelled to recieve mental health interventions to reduce their risks. But it is an opportunity to try and do so in the community.

I'd not heard of that Wyot and it seems to be a good idea. I'd like to see it tried before prison for non-violent offences.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
Mr Flintstone wrote:


So many people have been society' then return to murder or assault back on the streets.

But to eliminate the inevitable fact that violent people may be violent in the future, you would have to remove all these people permanently from society. Unless you bring back the death penalty for everyone who commits an assault in their local up to murder, we would need to lock them up until they die.

This would be an unaffordable - almost idealistically utopian approach - to the problem, aside from ethical objections.

Like C19 we have to live with a degree of risk in order to enjoy a civilised and free society.

Sounds perfect look up the vile, looney and dangerous permanently.

Don't I have a say as a tax payer ?

I'm assuming you mean LOCK GM or are you a voyeur?

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Mr Flintstone wrote:


Sounds perfect look up the vile, looney and dangerous permanently.



Well they wouldn't be bloody missing much at the moment would they; not much of a punishment!

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
Mr Flintstone wrote:


Sounds perfect look up the vile, looney and dangerous permanently.



Well they wouldn't be bloody missing much at the moment would they; not much of a punishment!


How about a firing squad - saves time and money ?

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Mr Flintstone wrote:


How about a firing squad - saves time and money ?

Can't do it under distancing rules at the moment would need to be a lone gunman: unless you offered GM the gunman would suffer too much guilt!

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
Mr Flintstone wrote:


How about a firing squad - saves time and money ?

Can't do it under distancing rules at the moment would need to be a lone gunman: unless you offered GM the gunman would suffer too much guilt!

Don't get me started on firearms we will be here until the next decade.